German User Fined For Having an Open Wi-Fi 563
Kilrah_il writes "A German citizen was sued for copyright infringement because copyrighted material was downloaded through his network while he was on vacation. Although the court did not find him guilty of copyright infringement, he was fined for not having password-protected his network: 'Private users are obligated to check whether their wireless connection is adequately secured to the danger of unauthorized third parties abusing it to commit copyright violation,' the court said."
I see. (Score:5, Insightful)
So does this mean if I accidentally leave our apartment unlocked one morning, someone breaks in, steals one of our daggers or guns, and commits a crime...that we could be charged for aiding a criminal?
Re:I see. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I see. (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, WiFi is not designed to be used for copyright infringement, even if open, and such things are commonplace/readily available.
It's more like someone walked in through an unlocked door in your house, stole a fork from your silverware drawer, and stabbed someone to death with it.
And now you the homeowner are being charged with the murder, because you leaving your door unlocked allowed the fork to be used.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Comparing copyright infringement to murder is sickening. This is the pattern in which Big Media wants us to think.
Re:I see. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really, it's simple use of "reductio ad absurdum" type logic to make a point.
Re:I see. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Pretty sure the majority of both sides are just fighting for profit.
Piracy is armed robbery of ships (Score:5, Insightful)
Comparing copyright infringement to murder is sickening.
Perhaps, but the comparison between prohibited copying and armed robbery of ships, which often involves murder, has been around so long enough that nobody outside the FSF bats an eye at calling it "piracy". The ship has sailed; the slope has slipped.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought it was because of the parrots and saying "arr" all the time.
Re:I see. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I see. (Score:5, Insightful)
And, since he did leave the door unlocked, that is entirely fair.
We must have skipped over the part where it became reasonable for a government to tell you that you must lock your door.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They tell us we have to wear seatbelts
Completely different. Arguably during an accident a seatbelt can potentially keep the driver in his seat, and can keep the driver or passenger from becoming a missile and injuring someone else, as well as reducing stress on an already stressed public emergency system. THis is a far cry from requiring me to lock my door because someone might steal some cutlery and stab someone with a fork, or requiring me to lock down my router because someone might part in fron of my house and torrent Avatar
Would you be comfortable with a person storing their guns on their front porch?
Depends on the
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I see. (Score:5, Insightful)
The law may or may not protect you, so why not just protect yourself and end the debate?
Because some people think that leaving wi-fi open is an expression of goodwill... sharing. I do not mind if others use my wifi, I quite like people doing so. If someone starts using lots of it, I'll block them, at least temporarily. That hasn't happened yet. There are people living close to me who are on low incomes (and bad credit ratings), and will find it tough to fork out for (or get) stable internet access. I do not mind sharing mine.
In the UK, the Conservatives recently campaigned hugely about "big society". Laws that hold those responsible for sharing liable go directly against that theme. Alienation from local issues destroys communities, lack of cooperation locally destroys communities.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Almost every other example you gave are local ordinances designed to keep your neighbours' property values from plummeting, (and maybe reduce crime via "broken window theory"). Locking your door addresses none of them.
I do agree with much of everything else you say here, but I disagree that there's any relevant, reasonable precedent for the government legislating that you lock your home door (a behaviour that only appears common, in my experience, in cities and some large suburbs -- but then, I'm Canadian
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have no idea where to look for a key for my house. If I suddenly decided that the doors need to be locked, I would have to go to the hardware store, and buy some locks. There is almost always SOMEONE home, and no one even thinks of locking the doors when anyone leaves.
I guess that if someone wanted in, they could GET IN, lock or no lock. Which is worse - to find all our stuff gone, or to find all of our stuff gone, AND broken windows on a dark and stormy night?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've always had a complete disregard for security. Admittedly, most of the stuff I've ever owned hasn't been worth all that much... I've had expensive bikes, a few decent cars, expensive computers, moniters & TV's etc. I've never owned my own home. I leave just about everything unlocked, all the time. Currently I live in a "good" area, but I lived in Leytonstone [wikipedia.org] and worked in Hackney [wikipedia.org] for a few years when I was younger, and kept the same principle throughout. My complete disregard for security has
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Murder? Wow. Way off.
This is more akin to having a car that everybody in the neighborhood shares. Therefore it's always open. Some creep takes the car, gets charged with speeding, and the owner gets jailtime for negligence. This law is basically discouraging charity & sharing. It's stupid and typical of a judge who should not be a judge.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If you haven't taken adequate steps to secure it, yes. If you leave broken glass all over your property and don't put up any warning signs, someone can trespass or break in and successfully sue you for damages. Not in criminal law, but in common law you typically have an obligation even with your own private property.
In reality you're probably not likely to get sued for having someone break in and steal your gun and commit a c
Re: (Score:2)
Way to not read the guy's WHOLE message. His point was even about that. His point was that Cars are more dangerous than guns, and yet we let car drivers operate their equipment with minimal oversight.
Off topib, but (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll add that the homeowner's liability for injuries to criminals who are trespassing and/or breaking in are quite different from one state to another. We don't all live in La-La-Land - errrr - I meant California. I read one story where a burglar hurt himself after falling through a roof, or a skylight, or some such. He successfully sued the homeowner, in California. In a more reasonable state, like Texas, the homeowner could have SHOT the SOB, and claimed that he was startled, and feared for his life.
Re:Off topic, but (Score:3, Informative)
Best thing for all concerned is, if you don't respect other's property, don't go to Texas. You'll get into serious trouble real quick. On the other hand, if you DO respect other's property, you should get along just fine. It isn't like people are being blown away without good reason, by law abiding citizens. Criminals, on the other hand, whether they be citizens or illegal aliens, have no problem blowing people away without good reason - and the gun laws that Texas DID have were relaxed to deal with tha
Re: (Score:2)
and...
Happens all the time. If it's deemed reckless is not an infraction, it
Re: (Score:2)
A few years ago I crashed into a light pole. I was charged with Wreck-less Driving and Damage to City Property. But I guess my county is a bit of a hardass when it comes to charging traffic bullshit. We're located right next door to Cook county (Chicagos county). They gotta prosecute something...
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree, if your house/apartment door is closed, there was no 'invitation' thus they broke the law, not you. If you have leave it wide open with a sign ' free beer party', and you don't take steps to at least close your bedroom door, then ya, you are negligent.
However that said, you can be sued in civil court for anything, by anyone.. doesn't mean its valid or you will lose but they can.
Re:I see. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to aim my gun at the RIAA's CEO's head. I think that would solve a multitude of issues... the replacement CEO would be so scared he'd stop trying to sue everyone... effectively impotent.
(Of course first I'd have to go buy a gun.)
Re:I see. (Score:4, Informative)
Though I agree with the sentiment, at least your gun doesn't broadcast it's presence in the house to the potential criminal. That is a significant difference between the two scenarios.
Re: (Score:2)
Though I agree with the sentiment, at least your gun doesn't broadcast it's presence in the house to the potential criminal. That is a significant difference between the two scenarios.
Are you sure his did? It's still perfectly possible to track down a router not broadcasting.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Virtually every security device can be circumvented
Citation needed...
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I see. (Score:5, Funny)
"This is the best post on /. I've read in years. Do you offer security consulting services?"
Or bricks?
Re:I see. (Score:4, Informative)
Um... Every book ever written on security? Name a security instrument. I'll show you how to circumvent it. It may not be easy, it may not be practical, it may not even be more than theoretical, but there's probably a way. The question is merely a matter of whether the data you're protecting is worth the effort required to get through your security. For instance there's a trivial way to break full disk encryption [xkcd.com], but most people won't use it due to it's violating a number of very serious laws. (Your porn collection may be excellent, but it isn't worth 25 to life)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, "not broadcasting" as in "not broadcasting its SSID", sure. "Not broadcasting" as in "Not emitting any RF signals in the 2.4, 3.6 or 5 GHz frequency bands", not so much, since that means the router is switched off.
So a non-SSID-broadcasting router is a gun shouting "I'm a gun!". An SSID-broadcasting router is a gun shouting "I'm a gun, and my serial number is...."
I'm still getting the sense we're not really addressing all aspects of this issue. Maybe if we reformulated this into a pizza analogy...
Re: (Score:2)
Reading comprehension fail (Score:2)
The court said that he wasn't found guilty for copyright infringement, which would be analogous in your example to being found guilty for aiding a criminal. You would be charged with failing to secure your residence, much in the same way that he was charged with failing to secure his wifi.
Re:I see. (Score:4, Informative)
Not sure about the dagger, and IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that in most places in the US you could be, successfully, sued for not properly securing your firearms. It strikes me that leaving an apartment//home unlocked when you know you have a gun in it could be construed as reckless behavior. Owning a gun is a right, but you have an obligation to practice that right in a responsible manner.
Re: (Score:2)
Couldn't the same be said for all your rights? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
It strikes me that leaving an apartment//home unlocked when you know you have a gun in it could be construed as reckless behavior. Owning a gun is a right, but you have an obligation to practice that right in a responsible manner.
Agreed. We have a gun safe for most of our firearms, as well as one of those mini-safes with the four-button combination lock under our bed.
My fiancee jokes that we don't need that one for home protection, as the the combination of what she looks like after being woken up and my breath upon waking, we already have deadly weapons :p
Re: (Score:2)
...except this situation is more like leaving your guns on the porch with a big sign saying "free guns".
The key thing here is that I don't have to go anywhere to see my neighbor's
poorly set up wireless network. I can see it from the comfort of my own
living room and it might even interfere with any network I might want to
set up.
This isn't just about "something in your own house". You broadcast it to everyone.
It's more like a magical gun safe that puts an unlocked door in every living room on your block.
If yo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As a matter of fact, in most countries (and US states, I believe) you are required to adequately secure your guns. So if it's just lying around on the table in your unlocked home, you may well be liable. If the thieves have to break open your gun locker, you're not.
And that's pretty much what the court said. Turn on encryption and change the default password and you're fine.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, most US states have very little to say about gun storage, mostly because proposed laws have been successfully recognized and opposed for what they are: incremental steps to paramount to prohibition.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
So does this mean if I accidentally leave our apartment unlocked one morning, someone breaks in, steals one of our daggers or guns, and commits a crime...that we could be charged for aiding a criminal?
Actually, yes. At least in Canada, anyways. If you own a firearm in Canada, there are so many regulations surrounding proper storage and securing of that firearm that while you may not be charged with accessory with murder, you would find yourself in plenty of other hot water.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually in some countries failure to secure your guns is a crime.
Firearms... maybe... Prank phone calls? (Score:2)
I like the thought, and others have commented on gun safety. Here's mine:
YOU leave YOUR apartment unlocked.
Bad guy enters YOUR apartment and uses YOUR telephone to make prank, obscene, or threatening phone calls.
The Court finds that YOU didn't make any of those calls.
YOU should not be fined because it's YOUR choice to lock or unlock your apartment.
YOU are blameless.
I guess it's not unusual to find the world mollycoddling the "Big Content" slimeballs.
E
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying that this analog makes it wrong or right - this is SlashDot where car analogies are a requirement.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it more appropriate to ask - if you leave your door unlocked and somebody walks in and rips your CDs and DVDs, are you - as the homeowner - negligent or in any way culpable?
Attractive Nuisance Perhaps? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you store weapons and don't adequately secure them, you'd certainly be in trouble.
On the other hand, if you left your cellphone lying around and it gets used to commit fraud, then you shouldn't be responsible for that. This is more like that, I think.
Re:I see. (Score:5, Interesting)
During our firearm safety course the instructor talked of a friend with a collection rivaling his (huge) that had the equivalent of a bank safe full of guns in his basement. He went on vacation, and while he was gone thieves broke into his house and apparently spent *days* breaking into the vault with a jackhammer and other tools. They finally cleaned him out.
When he returned home and reported the theft he was charged with improper storage of firearms. Their reasoning? Because he left the collection without someone to check on it while he was gone he wasn't taking adequate responsibility to ensure the guns didn't fall into the wrong hands.
Heavy fines and a firearms ownership ban were applied. This took place in Canada.
Qdequately secured or just secured? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Qdequately secured or just secured? (Score:5, Funny)
What exactly do they mean by adequately secured?
Your wireless router or access point must be secured by a either bicycle lock, a knotted jumble of bungie cords, an aggressive dog or cat, or a large glob of superglue.
Excuse me while I attempt this... (Score:5, Funny)
In soviet Germany, WiFi unsecures you!
Or your wallet, anyways.
So if I understand this correctly... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You telling me Britney Spears isn't worth at least that?
Re:So if I understand this correctly... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the media industry's out of control. Maniacal copyright infringement suits are their current approach to profit maximisation, but saying that copyright law is the problem makes it seem like the media industry is innocently obeying an unjust law. They're not. If we fix copyright tort, they'll do something else. Maybe demonise indie music as some sex-and-drugs scene to discourage parents from letting their kids buy off-label music, or convince the press that homebrew games destroy the mainstream games industry. They've taken an unscrupulous approach to maximizing their ROI, and so fixing the laws they exploit is not enough. We've got to stop supporting them.
Botnets (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Now there's an interesting idea. Someone should code a botnet that only downloads and shares copyrighted content, nothing else malicious.
So now we all work for the benefit of the RIAA? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Now there's an idea.
The people in Germany (and elsewhere?) are expected to secure their facilities to protect the RIAA's clients. So the RIAA should pay them for their efforts.
I hope not (Score:5, Interesting)
I hope there is slightly more to this story than the summary suggests. It seems absurd unless they have a law against sharing your internet connection. I personally have an open guest network with no protection, but then so do every major company, all libraries, schools, the trains and even the busses here in copenhagen.
actual judgement (Score:4, Informative)
The actual judgement is a bit more level-headed than the /. summary makes it to be.
The judge essentially said you ought to have some minimum level of security, elst you're liable for damages, much like everything else (e.g. if you don't put the brakes on in your car and it starts to roll and crashes into something).
The standard requested is pretty much "turn on encryption and change the default password".
Most commentators agree that for home users, not much will change. Unless you're an idiot, you already have these things for your home network. The challenge will mostly be to hotels, Starbucks, etc. with their open hotspots.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And why can't I run an open hotspot if I want to?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Then you get fined if someone breaks the law using your connection. Do it enough and you'll probably get charged with aiding and abetting. Though IANAL, it seems obvious enough. If you want to be an ISP, then you have to keep records indicating who your customers are (even if they aren't paying anything) so that the criminal can be found. I'm not saying I agree with any of this, but it seems easy enough to understand, given our typical current legal structure (I'm assuming Germany isn't too terribly differe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong analogy. Unlike the car, the router by itself wouldn't cause any damage. *Someone* committed a crime, they should prosecute that guy.
Then I guess I'm an idiot for being a nice guy and providing free access for people passing by. Why am I an idiot? My traffic is secure (I have two networks, one encrypted with WPA2-Enterprise with
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Pretty much, yeah. Besides which, why would you open yourself up to potential legal trouble from someone downloading kiddie porn or something through your link?
So by your logic, telecom companies should be liable if someone uses a payphone to harass someone?
Interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
The judge essentially said you ought to have some minimum level of security, elst you're liable for damages, much like everything else (e.g. if you don't put the brakes on in your car and it starts to roll and crashes into something).
Sorry, wrong car analogy. How about this one:
If your router is sitting loose at the edge of an open window, then wind blows and causes the curtain to move and drop the router through the window 10 stories falling on someone's head or car, you could be liable for damages, just like if the car didn't have brakes set in your analogy.
On the other hand, leaving your wifi access open is like leaving you car unlocked. So, now you are liable if your car is unlocked, someone gets in your car and starts copying your
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
how is that more level-headed? you're just defining the adequate security part from the summary with "turn on encryption and change the default password". your car analogy doesn't work either, if i have an open wifi spot it doesn't just go on a frenzy and download stuff, which is what you are suggesting.
the judgment here clearly means to say that an internet connections main purpose is to help you infringe on copyright. you won't get fined for sharing a fork with someone if that someone then goes to kill hi
This is GOOD news (Score:5, Funny)
While some of you slashdoters cannot even grasp what this means:
You can leave your wifi open, you can download anything you want, and the maximal fine will be 100 EUR!
I call that a big win where users would be sued up to 10.000 EUR for downloading/sharing music - this will put a dramatic lid on those things.
Cheers.
Manufacturers to blame? Lack of full regulation? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not a bad idea... (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe if this was extended to enforce a more responsible attitude for people leaving their PCs infected and sending out spam for months, I'd be all for it. Stupidity is no defence, so if you're irresponsible behaviour is causing misery for others, and potentially allowing a criminal offence to take place then you deserve to face charges.
Driving a car with no license, or instruction is an offence and whilst spamming thousands of people isn't actually dangerous, it affects more individuals.
Saying this, maybe wireless routers/modems shouldn't even have an option to operate in an open mode. Likewise, maybe ISPs shouldn't allow customers to send mail out on port 25 to random machines - just route it all through their own mail server. If a machine is sending a huge amount of mail, it's simple to block it until the user fixes their system. Surely it's not that fucking hard!
Soo (Score:3, Insightful)
Quick (Score:5, Funny)
Someone go find the RIAA/MPAA or whatever the equivalent in Germany is, use their wifi (would WEP or WPA-TSK count as "adequately secured to the danger of unauthorized third parties abusing it to commit copyright violation,'?) And start downloading everything you can think of. Lets see if they sue themselves.
This is disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)
Free public Wi-Fi is one of the most important public services of the 21st century. It gives anyone who can come up with the $200 for a netbook the ability to access the sum of human knowledge. It allows people to communicate over long distances in many more ways that a simple voice conversation. Anyone who comes up with the money for an unlimited internet connection and jeopardizes some of his privacy (or some convenience, if he uses some kind of proxy/encryption) to let anyone access the internet without paying high fees to greedy monopolistic corporations is doing good for society. Saying that he's doing evil since he's also allowing copyright infringement is like saying cars are evil since you can use one to get away from a robbery. All technology can be used for good and evil, but the internet being freely available to the public does hundreds of times more good than it does evil.
So what about a Starbucks that offers free wifi? (Score:2)
Lets up the status even more. How about a public library that offers free wifi?
But assuming it is my responsibilitiy to detect/prevent/record the internet crimes of strangers in my area to allow the government to prosecute them, does that mean I am also legally required to put camers up all around my property to detect/prevent/record NON-internet related crimes?
Moron judges should be fired, regardless of which country they are from.
Stop, belay that headline... (Score:4, Informative)
Serious case of misleading headline.... The court said: "If you have an open WIFI and someone uses it to fileshare copyright protected material, the owner of the rights may send you a cease and desist letter (effectively insisting that you secure your WIFI) and extract 100,- Euro from you for covering the fees of the legal process."
The user was not fined, he was not punished, he was not ordered to pay for the damages.
CU, Martin
P.S. Who wonders, that lawyers don't get the technical aspects right when the techies confuse the most elemental judical terms....
What law? (Score:3, Interesting)
As far as I know, you cannot be fined unless you do something illegal. In other words, there _must_ be at least one law you have broken with your actions or lack of actions. The obvious question then: _is_ there a law in Germany demanding that you secure your WiFi? Or is some law being extended to cover this situation?
In my country laws are usually interpreted very strictly: if they mention (just for example) print media, the law is not usually assumed to include digital media as well. This is normally a good thing: actions/things that are not explicitly illegal are automatically legal.
Browser authentication? (Score:3, Insightful)
So, what specifically constitutes a Protected Network in the context of this new law?
Open WIFI == ISP (Score:3, Interesting)
If you have an open WIFI, a prosecutor may be able to prove to a jury
that you are an ISP. If ACTA goes through, and ISP's held accountable,
then *you*, Mr Open WIFI, are liable.
A few more facts: (Score:5, Informative)
1. The network was in fact not open. It was secured with WPA1 and a default password (source, German [ferner-alsdorf.de])
"Somit ist auch noch einmal zu Betonen: Es ging in der Entscheidung nicht um ein vollständig ungesichertes WLAN! Der BGH hat also nicht über ein offenes WLAN verhandelt, wie lange fälschlicherweise berichtet wurde. Vielmehr ging es ganz allgemein um die bedeutsame Frage, welche Sicherungspflichten die Betreiber von WLAN allgemein trifft."
2. The 100 euro is not for copyright infringement, but rather it seems that in Germany the reciever of a DMCA-like notice is liable for up to 100 euro unless they can either a) Point the blame to someone else or b) Pass some standard of having done everything reasonable to avoid damage. That's at least how I read the law [dejure.org]:
" 97a Abmahnung
(1) Der Verletzte soll den Verletzer vor Einleitung eines gerichtlichen Verfahrens auf Unterlassung abmahnen und ihm Gelegenheit geben, den Streit durch Abgabe einer mit einer angemessenen Vertragsstrafe bewehrten Unterlassungsverpflichtung beizulegen. Soweit die Abmahnung berechtigt ist, kann der Ersatz der erforderlichen Aufwendungen verlangt werden.
(2) Der Ersatz der erforderlichen Aufwendungen für die Inanspruchnahme anwaltlicher Dienstleistungen für die erstmalige Abmahnung beschränkt sich in einfach gelagerten Fällen mit einer nur unerheblichen Rechtsverletzung außerhalb des geschäftlichen Verkehrs auf 100 Euro."
The key sentence here is "Soweit die Abmahnung berechtigt ist, kann der Ersatz der erforderlichen Aufwendungen verlangt werden." which translates to something like "When the warning is justified, compensation for the relevant expenses can be demanded." The second caps it to 100 euro for simple cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Or if he left his gun rack unlocked. Or if he didn't have his seatbelt fastened. Or if he failed to wear a helmet while operating a motorcycle. Or...
Re: (Score:2)
... if he practiced freedom of choice? Seriously, there's only so much I can take. If someone wants to be an idiot and weld a metal spike in their steering wheel, let natural selection run it's course.
Never underestimate money starved governments (Score:2)
In the US some areas charge you for having an accident. As in, you get into an auto wreck and all parties are charged a fee for emergency services.
So, in your scenario, your causing the police extra work by your negligence (just thinking out loud like a councilman looking for pennies in the couch would) and you should pay a penalty. Hell, we should be preemptive and apply a special tax to items you may own which thieves would want, a new desirable goods tax assessed yearly.
The government can force ANYONE
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yes, this actually happens. Same for not locking your car, which carries a fine of 90 euro's.
FINALLY, someone posts a car analogy! I was getting worried for a little while there.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait... there's actually a law that says you have to lock your car?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A cousin of mine served in the US Army and was stationed in Germany. He once received a citation because his car was unlocked. Yes, in Germany, there is a law stating you must lock your car, though I don't know if it applies while the care is secured in a garage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And if he could have demonstrated that that was what happened then he would have been acquitted. That's not exactly a catch-22 situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
Welcome to my world. My passport was stolen. I was "lucky this time", according to the officer, because they could have charged me with false identity terrorism aiding or somthing. I live in a democratic, western country and not in America and this almost happened to me. 'luckily the police officer was being nice'... jeez...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Germany is a civil law system, not a common law. Precedent doesn't work the same way over there.